Apr 8, 2014, 11:06 AM EST
I can’t decide if this is brilliant or insane: ESPN is going to do a “a special reenactment” of Hank Aaron’s 715th home run tonight. Meaning a reenactment of coverage. They’re calling it Aaron 715: Live in 2014. and it’ll be done in real-time on their website:
ESPN.com will start this reenactment at 7:15 p.m. ET tonight, with photos, videos and “reports” from the now-demolished Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta. Network baseball insider Jayson Stark will even serve as an “on-site” reporter. He’ll provide updates, statistics and player reaction throughout the evening, culminating at 9:07 p.m. ET, the exact time Aaron hit the home run 40 years ago.
If Stark is dressed as a 1974 reporter than this goes a long way toward putting it in the “win” column. Absent that, though, I feel like modern crazy coverage of historic events would be sort of awful. Cutting to the Baseball Tonight crew to mouth cliches about something that is and was fantastic and superlative on its own doesn’t seem like it adds anything, for example.
I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised, though.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 25
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 26
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 374
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)